I don't believe in gay marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Strawmen. How unique.

Homosexual monogamy and polygamy are inherently different. One would require relatively little change, simply allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples. The other would require a complete overhaul of our tax code, domestic abuse laws, and has comparatively weak research background supporting it as a viable situation for raising children and its effect on the psychological and physiological state of the spouse(s).

But hey, if the polygamy lobby wants to give it a go, I'll listen.

Yes. There are numerous civil - not religious, not moral, civil - reasons to prohibit polygamy, many of which are identified by the PP. Other include inheritance laws, medical rights/responsibilities, and custody issues, and there are a lot more of them. So, bigamy and polygamy are not comparable to same-sex marriage.

Wow, this is interesting. So, because it would require more work (rather than "relatively little change") you would deny someone the basic fundamental right to marry? Isn't that the whole point of the gay-marriage movement from the get-go? That you're being denied a civil right? what if the legislation thought allowing marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples was just too much work? is that enough reason?

And on the second point - background supporting a viable situation for raising children? Wow! Since when did we require research saying that something was a viable situation for raising children before we "allowed" it? What about unwed single parents? teen parents? parents on drugs (typically not removed from home unless there are severe neglect issues)?

When there is a widespread movement for allowing polygamous marriage, we'll talk about it. At the moment, there isn't a wide-spread movement for political marriage. It's not something that affects 3-5% of our population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gays aren't supposed to procreate, its natures way of natural selection to eliminate a defect

I kind of agree with this.

How? It makes no sense. Gay people are produced, almost always, by straight people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what about goat marriage

No ability to consent. Same with child marriage. Fundamentally different.

What about an extra wife or two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gays aren't supposed to procreate, its natures way of natural selection to eliminate a defect

I kind of agree with this.

How? It makes no sense. Gay people are produced, almost always, by straight people.

What do you expect? These people think the earth is 10,000 years old. How would they possibly be expected to understand natural selection?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what about goat marriage

No ability to consent. Same with child marriage. Fundamentally different.

What about an extra wife or two?

Also changes how consent works. One person in an equal and exclusive commitment to another is different than negotiating a triad commitment.

[Anonymous]

I support gay marriage, and I have no problem permitting polygamous or cousin marriage. Of course, I don't exactly see hordes of polygamists lobbying for state-recognized polygamous marriage.

It is only a matter of time once gay marriage passes everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Doesn't cousin marriage weaken the gene pool? Isn't that one of the main arguments against incest? How is cousin marriage relevant to the gay marriage debate?

[Anonymous]

Tell your mom, "So you think the life partner and loving companion of a national hero like Sally Ride shouldn't have the same access to Federal benefits that are available to Larry King's seven ex-wives?"

Sally Ride was gay. I never knew that.

Uggg, shudder, Federal benefits for Larry King's seven ex-wives!
I am a Republican / Tea Partier of the vilest sort and I am for gay marriage. Thank you for adding one more argument for supporting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't cousin marriage weaken the gene pool? Isn't that one of the main arguments against incest? How is cousin marriage relevant to the gay marriage debate?

Cousin marriage is permitted in a number of states. So it's odd that anyone would even bring it up.

[Anonymous]

Know why it's odd? Because its a strawman- a slippery slope argument used when one is out of rhetorical juice.

[Anonymous]

OP - your definiation of marriage is limited to those with the ability to copulate and procreate ??? I would assume the infertile or elective childless couples are not a legit marriages by your narrow minded intolerant standard

[Anonymous]

You're not alone http://idontbelieveingaymarriage.tumblr.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

How would gay marriage even affect you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

Okay, so you've made the case that women who have had hysterectomies or their tubes tied or have gone through menopause and men who have had vasectomies should all be legally barred from marrying, right?

So, do women who have passed through menopause have their marriages annulled or do they have a divorce? Because they can no longer have children, they are no longer legally allowed to be married, right?

[Anonymous]

Real simple solution, don't marry a gay and live and let live, stop with the gay bashing